Just how realistic is all this anyhow?

[GreenAsJade]

I was just reading another thread where it was claimed that "BFC don't add a campaign layer because it wouldn't be realistic".

Then someone else said "Actually, there wouldn't be any forces left from a typical CMBB battle to continue a campaign!".

That rang really true. Every battle I play win or lose (mostly lose, but hey!) there are hardly any forces left whatsoever. Is that _really_ how things went?

Take "Point, Counterpoint", which I've just played twice. The briefing says that this is a reconaisance, and you have to try to take the town. 25 minutes later, scores of tanks are littered around the countryside, along with lots of dead men. Somebody "won", but its hard to see how the battle helped either side in its campaign. There's not much left for either side to take home!

How realistic is that? I mean, I know people die in war and tanks get blown up (lots of people and tanks), but does every meeting engagement like this end in carnage? If not, why not, and thus how realistic are our battles?

(This is a genuine question: that's why I point to a particular scenario... would such a scenario really have played out the way we played it?)

Ta,

GaJ.

[Edward Windsor]

"There wouldn't be any forces left from a typical CMBB battle to continue a campaign" because there is no campaign.

What's the point in accepting a tactical loss when there is no bigger picture to consider?

It's a case of "last man standing" - players *generally* chuck everything they've got at the objectives because there is no reason not to. After each game the slate is wiped clean and you start again, no matter how horrendous your losses in the previous encounter.

Battlefront has made it perfectly clear is isn't going to happen, but I'd love to see some sort of campaign system (I admire the work done by various forum members to rectify this, but it's all a little too complicated and time-consuming for a muppet like me). It may not be entirely realistic, but it might be more authentic than what we've got (great though it is).

Teddy

[GreenAsJade]

So it seems that we genuinely have a game of highly accurate mechanics being used to simulate invariably totally unrealistic battles?

[BigDork]

I know I fight an scenario and a operation differently. In a scenario am a lot more aggresive and a lot more reckless as well. What do I have to lose?

But in an operation I am much more careful with my men and equipment. They have to last as long as possible. Otherwise it could be very hard to achieve victory 5,6,8 battles later.

[eichenbaum]

Combat Mission is a game. You can't really compare it with a true W.W.II battle.

Since you're the player of a particular scenario, you'll set the level of realism of the battle. No scenario designer can prohibit the gamy side of it all.

Designers can try to simulate an historical battle. Like myself for example. I'm creating scenario's where every street, building block, forest, hill... (well almost everything) is on it as it was in that year, with an accuracy of ca. 10 meters. Still I need to set-up a situation of a battle that would never have taken place but the men and material were there.

The realism of history goes as far as the designer has the information of that battle and is willing to implement it.

I think that a true-historical-perfect-simulation of an Operation is a very sleepy business. You'd get bored if you played it with with CM.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

I think that a true-historical-perfect-simulation of an Operation is a very sleepy business. You'd get bored if you played it with with CM.

That I can believe.

I've never played a scenario, 'cause I'm not much into playing the AI, but it does sound

like they add at least some caution to affairs.

Am I right in understanding that you can't 2-player a scenario?

[Kwazydog]

Just to clarify we have made it clear that there wont be any campaign system in the current engine, and it would have required too much recoding to put it in there. Time will tell where we might head with the engine rewrite

Dan

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

Am I right in understanding that you can't 2-player a scenario?

Scenarios can (and for many of them should) be played 2-players.

Actually some of us play ONLY scenarios and ONLY H2H...

[massimorocca]

The key word is time. You-we are playing with extreme time compression, what you see happening in 30 turns, so 30 minutes, in a real battle would be, may be 30 hours. Take an hour to approach to the target, wait 10 minutes without raise your head and moving a finger till the radio operator could contact the arty support and another 12 till the first shells fall over the enemy, repeat. The casualties ratio will drop dramatically bit you'll have a boring game.

More or less like SPR. Twenty minutes to clear Omaha beach and you'll have a great war movie, eight hours and you'll have the greatest boxoffice flop from the time of Cimino's "Heaven's Gate".

[_Axe_]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

Time will tell where we might head with the engine rewrite

Or you could tell....

[Folbec]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

I was just reading another thread where it was claimed that "BFC don't add a campaign layer because it wouldn't be realistic".

Then someone else said "Actually, there wouldn't be any forces left from a typical CMBB battle to continue a campaign!".

That rang really true. Every battle I play win or lose (mostly lose, but hey!) there are hardly any forces left whatsoever. Is that _really_ how things went?

GaJ.

Well, I think I made this remark, so I'll expand on it :

As far as realism goes CMBB losses also include shell shocked me, wounded, that could be recovered between battles in a campaign *IF* there is sufficent time between battles.

One thing to consider also is that CMBB only models front line troops. For each man on the front lines there is between 5 and ten doing logistics and support.

And real WWII casualties figures (will have to get the opinion of the grogs to have real figures) were easily a few percent per day at the division level.

This means that front line troops could get really mauled, since most of the losses concentrate on the few battalions that are in direct contact.

So I think attack / assault casualties are probably fairly realistic (casualties = wounded + "shell shocked" + dead). Probes are another matter.

[ November 13, 2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Folbec ]

[Thompson]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

Combat Mission is a game. You can't really compare it with a true W.W.II battle.

I think we all know CM is a game. It is a game that tries to be an accurate/realistic simulation of WWII battles. As such, when considering that most battles weren't isolated events and that real commanders had to always keep the next battle in mind, a "campaign mode" would just enhance the game's realism - making players think and care about their troops, instead of just trowing them away. Also, in campaigns things like cease-fire start to make sense, in an isolated battle (scenario) there's no real need for cease-fires until things are seriously FUBAR.

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

No scenario designer can prohibit the gamy side of it all.

No, of couse not, but if the game "rewards" this gamey way of playing, players who are losing a scenario have no reason (other than playing in "campaign mode" in their head) to hold back their last units. They can just throw them at the enemy in the hope of victory.

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

I think that a true-historical-perfect-simulation of an Operation is a very sleepy business. You'd get bored if you played it with with CM.

This is true, but the battles in campaigns would represent those moments where fighting took place, with the dull moments (where nothing really happened) being fast-forwarded over.

I for one, would really love a campaign game of CM, where battles/operations would be connected and winning now with extreme losses spells sure defeat the next day (next battle).

[AstroCat]

I just want to make the comment:

I would love a campaign system in CM. I really feel it would add a really awesome immersion factor to the game.

Since not everyone wants a campaign they could just play the scenarios or operations. A dynamic campaign system with user set variables would be just too cool, for me that would be the last piece of the puzzle!

Jordan "AstroCat"

[klapton]

And how would you implement the campaign system?

In operations you already have to take care of your men from battle to battle. If designers had more flexibility in designing them (different map for each battle, possibility of removing and replacing troops between battles) they could be just as good as a campaign system.

But trying to move to something bigger requires paying attention to supply, large aircraft and artillery assets, lines of communication, replacement troops etc. That would be a totally different game.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

I've never played a scenario, 'cause I'm not much into playing the AI, but it does sound

like they add at least some caution to affairs.

Am I right in understanding that you can't 2-player a scenario?

What do you mean by saying you've never played a scenario??? That you only have played Quick Battles? Or did you mix up Battle scenarios with Operations which Eichie was talking about? I hope you did...

And yes, two players can play an operation, as a matter of fact the AI does very poorly in operations because it doesn't preserve its forces for later engagements.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by klapton:

...But trying to move to something bigger requires paying attention to supply, large aircraft and artillery assets, lines of communication, replacement troops etc. That would be a totally different game.

Amen. In CMMC2 all of the above has to be handled by Game Managers (GMs) who freely devote their precious time. IF BTS or anyone else can ever create a tool to automate the campaign aspect and integrate the results into CM battle(s), I doubt I would ever bother to buy another computer game, unless it could integrate with a campaign mode.

Ken

[Jack Carr]

Take into account some of the ridiculous orders given by Hitler and Stalin. The "Not one step back" and "Such and such a town/city must be taken/held" and "Advance regardless of the cost". These types of orders caused unbelievable numbers of unnecessary casualties on both sides. I'm stating the obvious when I say that World War II wasn't the Gulf War. To take and hold objectives cost lives, alot of them. The battle technology of the day dictated the type of warfare that was fought. In a given scenario, you are given objectives. You never are given a "Pull back to preserve lives if it gets too bad" objective. You are only given flags on a map to defend or take. That's what CM is.

I have made several attempts at scenarios with no flags but with exit points. Attempting to keep it in some sort of historical context/realism they dealt with breakout type situations. Mixed results. I even made one based on the moie "Cross of Iron" where you had to get Steiner and his men out of the factory complex and off the map while the T-34's laden with Soviet infantry attacked the mostly abandoned German positions. Again, mixed results. Steiner usually snuffed it when I played my own scenario knowing in advance what the Russians had.

[xerxes]

I think part of the unrealistic "battle to death" phenomenon is due to players being overly concerned with flags and not paying attention to knockout points. You can win a lot of scenarios by perserving your force and getting your VPs by eliminating enemy forces. Even if you don't hold the flags at the end you can win.

I've seen many battles in which one side thinks they have to take a flag and is willing to expend a significant portion of their force to do so. You can easily lose more points in casualties then you would gain by capturing the flag.

I've found avoiding casualties is often the most important element in success on the battlefield.

[legend42]

To Green as Jade

There are multiple reasons your scenario ended with such unrealistic carnage.First the turn limit of say 30-40 turns is ridiculous.All QB'S and or scenarios should have the option of no turn limits.The unrealistic turn limit causes you to make rash and foolish decisions causing many unnecesary casualties.Think about your orders as if you were really in the tank or squad.Most people play the game with reckless abandonment with no consequence.If you play the game very conservatively and "pretend" there are great consequences to your battle, your casualties will drop dramatically, the other bennefit to playing this way is you will most likely win more,especially when up against a "cowboy with alot to prove".

Just pretend now,what if on every casualty you got,you knew someone was going to punch you in the face,thats your consequence,you would play entirley different to avoid casualties,now suppose it was Mike Tyson,you would have even less. The current game does not allow for unlimited turns .Its max is 120 turns,when you dl a scenario edit the turns to 120 unless the time constraint is crucial to scenario design and in most cases they are not.

So play with a 120 turn limit and use the time wisley, dont rush.Play very conservative,pbem is better for this than tcip.Now don't complain because the game is moving alot slower,thats more realistic to the way it was.If someone is losing badly the global morale will kick in to end the game or someone may request a ceasefire.

[eichenbaum]

(about the campaign systems that were mentioned)

Eichenbaum.org is working on a campaign system that runs with CMBB. Items like reinforcements, reaching objectives, air support etc etc... are implemented in this system.

Without re-programming CMBB it self the development of such system is a very time consuming task. That's why we're able to create only one campaign.

One thing we have to keep in mind. CM is a tactical wargame, not an operational. If you're able to play a campaign you still need to set the actions for every unit. CMBB doesn't work to well with "just go to that location and see what happens", you'll be loosing a lot

Playing a campaign does take lots of time. And for what I know is that a 1/2 of the CM players do not want to spend that much time on only one bunch of scenario's.

Then you have the players who only like to play human vs. human. I can't imagine an whole campaign playing with 2 men be fun for both.

So... CM should be supplied with an campaign system build in, but this system shouldn't be the core that CM runs on.

[ November 13, 2003, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ]

[Trommelfeuer]

I play scenarios very very conservative, my main goal is keeping my own casualities very low and so far this works very well. (...against the Artificial Intellicence...)

For example: I've played through the first three Stalingrad Pack scenarios "Into the void", "When worlds collide" and "6th Army Probe".

I got three total Axis victories with minor losses.

I think I'll try Operation Störfang V2 now...

Greetings, Sven

[Joachim]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

Then someone else said "Actually, there wouldn't be any forces left from a typical CMBB battle to continue a campaign!".

That rang really true. Every battle I play win or lose (mostly lose, but hey!) there are hardly any forces left whatsoever. Is that _really_ how things went?

GaJ.

Playing campaigns based on some external rule sets, I do not play to win a single battle but to win as many battles as possible. To do the latter, I have to preserve my forces (plus you start to love that crack tank crew). If I have to stop the attack or retreat instead of defending, I do it. Losses above 15% in a given battle are rare for me (excpet for pre-battles casualties I roll according to the rules).

Additionaly, rules can favor a more cautious approach by subtracting points for losses of AFVs and guns.

A scenario is a very different thing. But even here pushing for all flags is often not the best strategy. You can take all flags and wipe out all of your opponents troops and still loose the scenario.

Gruß

Joachim

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by legend42:

To Green as Jade

There are multiple reasons your scenario ended with such unrealistic carnage.First the turn limit of say 30-40 turns is ridiculous.All QB'S and or scenarios should have the option of no turn limits.The unrealistic turn limit causes you to make rash and foolish decisions causing many unnecesary casualties.Think about your orders as if you were really in the tank or squad.Most people play the game with reckless abandonment with no consequence.If you play the game very conservatively and "pretend" there are great consequences to your battle, your casualties will drop dramatically, the other bennefit to playing this way is you will most likely win more,especially when up against a "cowboy with alot to prove".

Just pretend now,what if on every casualty you got,you knew someone was going to punch you in the face,thats your consequence,you would play entirley different to avoid casualties,now suppose it was Mike Tyson,you would have even less. The current game does not allow for unlimited turns .Its max is 120 turns,when you dl a scenario edit the turns to 120 unless the time constraint is crucial to scenario design and in most cases they are not.

So play with a 120 turn limit and use the time wisley, dont rush.Play very conservative,pbem is better for this than tcip.Now don't complain because the game is moving alot slower,thats more realistic to the way it was.If someone is losing badly the global morale will kick in to end the game or someone may request a ceasefire.

Good point. Interesting concept. I'm going to give this a try in a QB and see how it runs. Thanks.

[Hat Trick]

Another reason that casualties are so high in CM is that units in the game are much more resilient after taking casualties than they would be in real life. For instance, in CM a ten man infantry squad can be ordered to attack even if nine of its members are casualties. In the real world, a squad that takes two or more casualties will usually cease all offensive operations, tend to the casualties, and try to hunker down in a good defensive position.

[Sergei]

Campaigns themselves are unnecessary to the game. Something like in Steel Panthers would require a lot of rules and testing to make them even remotely reasonable, and in the end you'd get sick and tired of a string of similar pre-generated battles pretty soon anyway (that happens in SP at least).

But we already do have operations. They just would need to be improved per rules (for instance the way front lines are drawn). Also make it possible to design operations which take place on different maps and have generated "Quick Operations", and I think that's all that is needed.

I mean, the main point of these requests is not about controlling the war economies but about having a bit more immersion and continuity in the battles. And this is what the Operations do, the only thing is that they apparently were given a secondary role in the game design, and as such are undeservingly unpopular among CM'ers.